A male pit bull seized from a Madison County man in a dog fighting bust this summer was recently returned to that man. This seems sad and doesn’t make much sense to me. I can’t imagine Michael Vick getting one of his dogs back as he awaited his day in court.

The way I see it, if you’re cleared of the charges, then you should be awarded custody, but not before that day.

In case you missed it, the Madison County Animal Control Board recently voted 3-2 to return temporary custody of a pit bull to Johnny Johnson, who was the first person in the state arrested under Georgia’s new felony dog fighting law, which took effect July 1.

Johnson was arrested at his Hwy. 98 home July 3 and charged with several felony counts of dog fighting. Law officers found evidence of dog fighting, including logging chains, a breeding stand and other dog fighting paraphernalia.

Seven dogs were seized in the dog fighting bust. Johnson only claimed one of those dogs, the one that was eventually returned to him by the animal control board. The other six animals were taken into custody by the county. One died of a disease in its pen at the animal control department. The other five were euthanized after no one responded to advertisements from the county for potential rescue of those animals. Four were put to sleep on Sept. 23, while another was euthanized in mid November, according to animal control officer Jack Huff.

Apart from the obvious moral issue of returning a dog to someone accused of an animal cruelty crime, the local dog fighting case highlights a financial dilemma in criminal cases involving animal neglect and abuse in this county.

Consider that you can’t just euthanize a dog seized in a criminal case because it may be returned to the owner if he is acquitted. (Yes, several of the dogs were euthanized, but remember, Johnson only claimed one dog.)

Since those animals must be kept alive, there is the matter of paying for the food and housing of animals while legal proceedings drag on for months, and in some cases, years.

Huff said the Humane Society is making the Johnson matter a “test case” in its push for tougher dog fighting laws, a move that comes in the wake of the highly publicized Vick dog fighting case.

With all the attention on the Johnson case, the county received a $4,475 reimbursement from the Humane Society for its expenses in housing the dogs seized in the raid. This covers much of the cost of housing those animals from July 3, when the arrest was made, to mid November, when the one dog was returned to Johnson and the last of the other dogs was put to sleep.

But other cases won’t have that sort of attention. And reimbursement from outside sources won’t always flow into the county.

So why not just house those dogs at the shelter? Well, the shelter did keep one of the dogs seized in the Johnson bust that was sociable enough to be around other dogs. Huff said that all the dogs seized in the Johnson bust were pretty friendly around people. However, all but one dog turned really aggressive in the presence of other dogs.

But if the Madison-Oglethorpe Animal Shelter takes on the responsibility of housing animals seized in county criminal cases, it commits space to these animals for as long as the legal proceedings drag on. That means other animals that might be adopted must be put to death, due to a lack of space. This goes counter to the shelter’s mission of controlling the stray population and adopting out animals.

The Johnson case is expected to go to court in May. I hear this and think of the recent talk of establishing a State Court in Madison County in order to relieve some of the burden on Superior Court. The State Court could handle less serious cases, leaving the bigger cases to Superior Court. This seems like a pretty good idea. Even if there is some cost involved, speeding up the judicial process in this county will have a positive ripple effect, all the way down to the dogs.

Hopefully, the logging chains are gone and that dog will get a visit or two from the local animal control as he waits for his owner’s day in court.

What if the accused is not convicted? Hard to get a dog back once the "animal control" has "euthanized" it. Should not the accused be compensated? Should not the animal control officers be held personally, criminally AND civilly, responsible?

I think this gentleman will be exonerated. The evidence against him is beyond weak. A logging chain as evidence of dog fighting? Hardly. You mention the Vick case. Vick was convicted based on video evidence of dogs fighting, money changing hands, and eyewitness testimony. Short of that, the evidence thus far produced by animal control is hardly worthy of an arrest, nor a trial, much less a conviction. Maybe that's why they are trying to try this case IN THE PRESS? That's usually the case. I think the accused in this case will be filing, at the minimum, a suit against Madison County's animal control officers.

There is a presumption of innocence - NOT a presumption of guilt. And in this case, 6 months after the arrest, there has been not trial, and not even an indictment. Incredulous. Frankly, at this late date, the case should be dismissed as animal control and the DA have already denied the accused a swift trial.

While I agree with innocent until proven guilty, whould you also suggest that a pot plant be returned to the grower until proven guilty.

The only dogs that have been euthanized are the ones Johnson stated were not his and that no one else came forward to claim. Why would you suggest that an animal control officer be held criminally, personally and ciminally responsible for euthanizing a dog without an owner? It's disposing of confiscated property.

My real concern in this case is that the Board of Commissioner empowered the Animal Control Board to make decisions regarding evidence. Could they also appoint a committee to return a child to a family member that has been arrested for child molestation until trial or return a gun to an arrested armed robber until trial?

Owning and/or chaining a pitbull is not illegal, but returning that animal to someone who has been arrested for dog fighting should not be decided by an appointed committee.

It was auctioned to the public but no one wanted these dogs. The reason is a tragic one: pit bulls are inherently seen as dangerous and the article states that all but 1 dog was aggressive towards other dogs, making it difficult for someone with an animal or who doesn't have a lot of animal experience to adopt. Talk to most any dog trainer or long-time dog owner and they will tell you the same thing: any dog can be dangerous, but any dog can also be trained to behave normally and be social. The true tragedy is that these dogs were killed because of their breed; had they been standard poodles, they would've been gone in a heartbeat.

When and where was the auction advertised? I thought these dogs were evidence in a criminal case. Isn't destroying evidence a serious crime? Maybe the dogs were aggressive because they were violently captured and thrown into a strange environment with other strange dogs. My dog is a sweetheart, but throw him in a room with some strange dogs and there's gonna be a rumble...don't these morons know this? That's just common sense.

If any dog can be trained to be social, why were these dogs killed? I suspect a defense attorney will ask for a dismissal as his defense may have been to use the dogs to show that they were harmless. Pretty convenient for the animal control to destroy the evidence, huh?

Add Comment

Name

Email

Homepage

In reply to

Comment

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:

Phone*

What is three plus five?

Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.